RE: Bof at next IETF?

["Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>]

Parviz Yegani writes...

> A number of drafts on Radius Extensions have been submitted for quite
> sometime ...

Well, to be tongue-in-cheek, unlike fine wines, Internet Drafts do not
always improve with age.  

Those drafts that call for extensions to RADIUS that are outside the
RADEXT proposed charter, and would break backwards compatibility with
the existing RADIUS RFCs and RADIUS implementations, should never, IMHO,
be published as Standards Track RFCs, and I have some serious doubts as
to whether they should be published as Informational RFCs. 

The "need" for drafts to be acted upon quickly must be tempered by the
"need" for them to fall within the proposed charter and achieve broad
Internet Community consensus.

> I thought we agreed at IETF58 in Minneapolis that RADIUSEXT was the
> only home for these drafts, no?

We decided that drafts that fell within the scope of the proposed
charter would best find a home in an RADEXT WG.  There are other drafts
that might be handled in another (existing) IETF WG.  And there are some
drafts that require rework and revision to fit within the proposed
RADEXT WG charter.

So it depends on which subset of drafts you are referring to...

-- Dave



--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>